Clear Channel United Kingdom Ltd, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor [2004] EWHC 2483 (Admin) (14 October 2004)

Clear Channel United Kingdom Ltd, R (on the application of) v First Secretary of State & Anor [2004] EWHC 2483 (Admin) (14 October 2004)

The Inspector applied the correct legal test under Regulation 8, gave adequate reasons for his decision, properly considered all relevant factors including the 1993 decision and the current state of the site, and was entitled to pay special attention to the conservation area. There was no error of law or failure of reasoning justifying quashing the decision.

Citation
[2004] EWHC 2483 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: Clear Channel United Kingdom Limited; First Defendant: First Secretary of State; Second Defendant: London Borough of Islington
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
14 October 2004
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Discontinuance Notice, Deemed Consent, Advertisement Control, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Amenity, Judicial Review
Administrative Law Planning Law Discontinuance Notice Deemed Consent Advertisement Control Conservation Areas Listed Buildings Amenity +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clear Channel United Kingdom Limited

Claimant

First Secretary of State

First Defendant

London Borough of Islington

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (section 288 Town and Country Planning Act 1990) / High Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Inspector applied the correct legal test under Regulation 8 of the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992
  2. 2 Whether the Inspector gave adequate reasons for his decision
  3. 3 Whether the Inspector erred in law by considering irrelevant factors or failing to consider relevant ones

Ratio Decidendi

The Inspector applied the correct legal test under Regulation 8, gave adequate reasons for his decision, properly considered all relevant factors including the 1993 decision and the current state of the site, and was entitled to pay special attention to the conservation area. There was no error of law or failure of reasoning justifying quashing the decision.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • Application for judicial review dismissed
  • Claimant to pay First Defendant's costs